Monuments Men 2014 - Reviews

The first review (I think)..........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A not so good review...  thanks to NK

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'The Monuments Men' Review: George Clooney's
January 29, 2014 | 09:00AM PT

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In his fifth directorial feature, George Clooney transforms a fascinating art-world detective story into a surprisingly lifeless prestige picture.

It’s not only the great works of European art that have gone missing in “The Monuments Men”; the spark of writer-director-star George Clooney’s filmmaking is absent, too. In adapting writer Robert M. Edsel’s account of the men charged with protecting the Western world’s aesthetic treasures from wartime destruction, Clooney has transformed a fascinating true-life tale into an exceedingly dull and dreary caper pic cum art-appreciation seminar — a museum-piece movie about museum people. Fronting an all-star cast and top-drawer craft contributions in every department, this expensive-looking Sony/Fox co-production should outpace the $75 million worldwide gross of Clooney’s previous turn in the director’s chair (2011’s “The Ides of March”), but doesn’t amount to more than a footnote in his remarkable filmography.

When Clooney started out as a director, it was clear he’d learned a great deal about technique from his many collaborations with Steven Soderbergh, and his first two features, “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” (2002) and “Good Night, and Good Luck” (2005), were compelling evidence that the pupil might be as good as the master. Though wildly divergent in tone, both those movies were inventive biopics set against the backdrop of live television production — a world Clooney grew up in — and “Confessions” in particular seemed informed stylistically by the fast pace and self-reflexivity of live TV. But “The Ides of March” and now “The Monuments Men” are likes movies made by someone else: dutiful, establishment prestige pictures with “big” ideas communicated in thuddingly literal fashion. In short, if Clooney started out as Soderbergh, somewhere along the way he seems to have turned into ’80s-era Norman Jewison.

In between “Good Night” and “Ides,” Clooney made “Leatherheads,” a stab at ’30s screwball comedy that was reliably a half-beat off from Howard Hawks’ rhythms. And with “The Monuments Men,” Clooney seems to be aiming for something faintly Hawksian again, casting himself in the role of Frank Stokes, the Fogg Museum art historian who conceives of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFAA) program and ultimately finds himself running it. The time is the spring of 1944, a few weeks after Allied bombers destroyed a fifth-century abbey at Monte Cassino in Italy, mistakenly believing it to be a Nazi stronghold, and despite a presidential order stating that important historical and artistic sights were not to be bombed. The only solution, Stokes (who’s based on the real Fogg curator and conservationist George Stout) proposes, is to create an elite corps of art-world experts who’ll travel to the front lines and advise those in command, while also working to recover the thousands of artworks stolen by the Nazis from private Jewish collections and museums alike — many of them destined for Hitler’s planned Fuehrermuseum in his hometown of Linz.

So like a paintbrush-toting Nick Fury, Stokes sets about assembling his team: expert art restorer James Granger (Matt Damon); Chicago architect Richard Campbell (Bill Murray); sculptor Walter Garfield (John Goodman); theater impresario Preston Savitz (Bob Balaban); a disgraced British museum head (Hugh Bonneville) in need of a second chance; and a former Ecole des Beaux-Arts painting instructor (Jean Dujardin) from gay Paris. Middle-aged and out of shape, they stick out like a Picasso in the Cloisters when they show up for basic training in England, but then, they’ve been recruited for their brains, not their brawn.

For all its talk about art being “the very foundation of modern society” and solemn sermonizing like “Who will make sure the statue of David is still standing, the Mona Lisa still smiling?” it’s one of the curiosities of “The Monuments Men” that so few pieces of art actually appear onscreen in the course of the movie’s two hours. For much of that time, our heroes travel hither and yon on the trail of two particular masterpieces: Michelangelo’s marble-sculpted Madonna of Bruges and Flemish masters Hubert and Jan van Eyck’s 12-panel altarpiece “The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb,” both seized by the Germans during the war. But aside from those treasures, themselves glimpsed only fleetingly, the movie tends to talk about art in general rather than specific terms.

The MFAA men themselves are rendered similarly vague. Whereas Edsel’s book bristled with vivid individuals, many of them friends or foes from their civilian art-world lives, the characters Clooney and regular screenwriting partner Grant Heslov have made from them feel sketched-in at best, as if it their personalities had been traded away along with their real names. Indeed, just about everything Clooney and Heslov have done to make Edsel’s sprawling narrative more coherent and cinematic has the effect of simply making things bland. Largely gone is the lively battlefield bickering between Monuments and Army men over the relative value of art and human life, replaced by such hackneyed invented scenes as the one in which a Monuments Man bravely sacrifices himself in a failed effort to save the Madonna. (In reality, a couple of MFAA workers died in the combat zone, but none quite so romantically.) It’s like a men-on-a-mission movie tailor-made for audiences who found “Inglourious Basterds” too irreverent.

Clooney’s Stokes is like a tamer version of the acerbic Special Forces officer he played in another wartime treasure hunt, David O. Russell’s “Three Kings” — the kind of debonair, wizened man of the world Clooney can act in his sleep (which he sometimes seems to be doing here). Damon, meanwhile, is altogether too laid-back for a man who supposedly spends his days making infinitesimal touch-ups to decaying artistic masterworks. His poor command of French becomes one of the movie’s labored running jokes, but no one ever mentions Cate Blanchett’s tortured Gallic accent as Claire Simone, an assistant curator at Paris’ Jeu de Paume museum who knows more about the stolen art’s whereabouts than she initially lets on, fearing that the Americans may simply steal everything for themselves. (Blanchett’s character is based on Rose Valland, whose own memoir served as the basis for John Frankenheimer’s “The Train,” an equally fictionalized but far more exciting take on these events, and one of the great action movies of the ’60s.)

Faring generally better are Murray and Balaban, who foster a nicely understated comic chemistry and seem to have decided to make the most of their underwritten scenes. In one of the only moments of “The Monuments Men” that strikes a real chord, Murray receives a homemade recording of his grandchildren singing “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas,” and Clooney holds on the actor’s wonderfully emotive face as Balaban plays the record for him over the barracks PA.

The real Monuments Men were men of great passion and senses of duty who risked their own lives for art, but the film Clooney and Heslov has made is an oddly bloodless and conventional tribute, dutifully winding its way toward an obvious destination with the expected parade of historical signposts: lots of onscreen titles to signal the passage of time; occasional glimpses of Hitler looming over a scale model of the Fuehrermuseum; the issuance of the 1945 “Nero Decree” stating that if Hitler dies or Germany falls, all the stolen art will be destroyed. Through it all, the movie never really springs to life, and that’s a particular disappointment coming from Clooney, who’s smart and tasteful and one of the only people in today’s Hollywood who could get a project like “The Monuments Men” off the ground in the first place. In the end, the art is recovered, but the movie itself remains entombed.

The extensive special-effects work that reportedly held up the pic’s release from Christmas of last year is, in the end, seamless to behold. Composer Alexandre Desplat, who contributes one of his most conventional scores — a John Williams-esque Americana fanfare — also appears in a small role as one of Damon’s contacts in the French resistance. Heslov cameos as an Army surgeon, while Clooney’s father, Nick, appears as an aged Stokes in a 1970s epilogue.

More

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not sure, but I have a feeling that the 7th is when Berlinale starts, and MM is the next day........

Another review

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Maybe the Mods can move the reviews that will be pouring in to their own thread? If that's what Katie wants?

Can everyone please post the reviews of Monuments Men in this thread - thanks

Review: 'The Monuments Men' Starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, & Cate Blanchett [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— ThePlaylist (@ThePlaylist) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney's 'Monuments Men' was smart to dodge the Oscar season [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— HitFix (@HitFix) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney's 'Monuments Men' was smart to dodge the Oscar season

A movie like this that avoids the bait would have been devoured

By Kristopher Tapley Wednesday, Jan 29, 2014 12:00 PM


As Oscar's phase one drew to a close and the nominations were set to be unveiled, the film press corps was getting its first look at one movie that dodged all of that commotion last year: George Clooney's "The Monuments Men." It's set for release next week and with its arrival, one can only ask: was Sony smart to move it out of the season?

The easy answer is "yes." This isn't the awards film it might have been. But that's not a value judgment or a criticism. Let me explain.

I was a little surprised by "The Monuments Men" in that it doesn't take the bait of its own premise. It ended up steering clear of being an overtly plot-driven thing, which is unexpected given how meaty the story is. And indeed, I wasn't alone. I spoke with the film's cinematographer Phedon Papamichael about it at the recent Critics' Choice Movie Awards ceremony — he's nominated this year for Alexander Payne's "Nebraska." He told me there was a lot of that sort of stuff, plot-driven, active material that apparently didn't make it into the final cut.

Reports at the time of the film's move to 2014 indicated that Clooney was still trying to find the right tone and, according to the director and star, he "just didn't have enough time." Seeing the finished product now, and taking Papamichael's comments into account, I can see that was the case. But getting out of the season had plenty to do with staying away from the kinds of expectations that build toward the end of a given year. "He thought he could just open it and say, 'Hey, guys, this isn't an awards movie,'" one person close to Clooney told me at the time. Alas, that time of year is a self-cannibalising mess, so I can't imagine launching then unless you're ready and willing to play that game.

Ultimately, the film ended up being much more character-driven and character-focused than I anticipated. It has a classical feel, each new scene or segment playing out like a little vignette, almost. Part of that is because the cast is scattered throughout, Matt Damon's scenes mostly shared with Cate Blanchett in one European locale, John Goodman and Jean Dujardin's in another, Bill Murray and Bob Balaban's in another, etc. This leads to a lot of interesting little moments between the characters and the whole things has an easy feel to it. Murray and Balaban in particular have one such moment, quietly conveyed in the snow-blown periphery of the Battle of the Bulge, that I found touching and evidence of Clooney not taking the simple route with this film.

It would not have found much traction during the season, though. Particularly not with Sony tied up with "American Hustle" and "Captain Phillips" campaigns. It's handsomely wrought, Papamichael's work and that of the art and costume departments finely rendered. I suppose it could have found some purchase below the line. But it would have been a hard sell overall because, again, it simply doesn't take the bait of its own premise. It doesn't go for that obvious angle. And that's frankly admirable.

"The Monuments Men" opens nationwide on Feb. 7.

Read more at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

so

guess this film was not set for reviewers

hope for the audience   

" It doesn't go for that obvious angle. And that's frankly admirable."

  

Thanks for all the reviews   

The reviews are very mixed. Hopefully it does ok a the box office...

Next one:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Such disappointment, it has 25% in Rotten Tomatoes.. But will wait and see..

Some reviews may be lukewarm, but hopefully it will do well at the box office.

I hope a director's cut is released later on dvd too.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That’s not to say “The Monuments Men” won’t be a treat for audiences starved for adult-oriented entertainment after they’ve sampled all of last month’s prestige pictures. It’s an often fascinating and suspenseful fact-based story, filmed on colorful locations with a great cast.

I think the problem with Clooney is that you never know what will he do next, he doesn't have a pattern, he doesn't stick to the rules I suppose. He likes to try different things, and critics seem to have such expectations that are different than Clooney's real goal or purpose. At least that's how I see it

Well I don´t peruse critic´s reviews and then decide if I want to see a movie. Their views are insignificant to me, but maybe they are people who go for what critics praise and skip the films that get bad reviews.

Also unfortunately it sometimes sounds like critics are squashing the director/actors for other than the movie they are reviewing...

Who cares, dogs are barking but caravan goes on.   

It's true that I have seen a lot of movies without checking their reviews, and critics opinions are not always right, but when a highly anticipated movie is reviewed poorly I think it is a bit of concern.

Carla97 wrote:

Also unfortunately it sometimes sounds like critics are squashing the director/actors for other than the movie they are reviewing..

Who cares, dogs are barking but caravan goes on.   

Well said Carla.


If ppl listened to critics there would have been NO ART TO SAVE, NOW OR IN WW11.

lol   

hope it was war II
right?

Oops yes   

ok
I also will try not to get too upset
and wait what ppl will think about this film

  

Boshkash wrote:I think the problem  with Clooney is that you never know what will he do next, he doesn't have a pattern, he doesn't stick to the rules I suppose. He likes to try different things, and critics seem to have such expectations that are different than Clooney's real goal or purpose. At least that's how I see it  

That's exactly how I see this too.  They had expectations before going in to review and since it didn't follow the line of thought/action they expected, it's a disappointment to them.   Make no appointments and you have no disappointments!  Don't go in to review something with a closed mind or preconceived notion about what it is a head of time. 

This film was made for the audience and great character development, which is something all the reviews seem to agree on, is essential to keep the audience engaged and after all, isn't that what film making is all about?  He and Grant didn't tackle this story to win an Oscar, they wrote it according to what could be accomplished in a short two hour film format and considering the overwhelming material to work with, hundreds of characters who were actually involved and had to be pared down to just a few characters to represent the whole and the length of time this story took to play out in real time, that's quite a task just on it's own merit.

People are generally disappointed when they've read a book and then see the film when it doesn't cover it the same way.  I think that's the case here.

The book is unbelievably complicated and long, and like a minihistory of the war, as indeed was the massive undertaking of the Monuments Men covering vast tracts of Europe.

It will be really interesting to see how they've managed to condense it and which parts they've highlighted, and how they've brought the fight levels of humour and seriousness to an almost impossible task.

Whatever people think, they have brought a largely unknown but amazing and ongoing story to the forefront of peoples' minds, and a lot of good will hopefully come out of it, as well as being a tool to harness other great work along the way

I don't think of George's diversity in his film making as
"A problem"
His willingness and ability to "create outside of the box" is what I admire about him and keeps my interest in his film work alive.
I don't get why the so called professional reviewers
are so obsessed with Oscars ?
A film is a film and a new creation, IMO anyway.

There are times too when a film is terribly dissed by the critics and then that creates a hype to people and they go see it to see what all the bad reviews are about.

The Guardian on the matter...wonder who the sub-editor of this piece was:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joanna wrote:I don't think of George's diversity in his film making as
"A problem"
His willingness and ability to "create outside of the box" is what I admire about him and keeps my interest in his film work alive.
I don't get why the so called professional reviewers
are so obsessed with Oscars ?
A film is a film and a new creation, IMO anyway.

Critics almost always want to "kill" art...they dissect and devour it and in the process "murder" the mystery and the grandeur of viewing and enjoying it, in doing so!

Those critics can't stop me from seeing it! Always the loyal Clooney fan!

From pan's link above in the Guardian review, last paragraph...this guy got it in my opinion! I would bet he went into the screening with an open mind, to be entertained and to learn something in the process!

Geeknation.com's Todd Gilchrist wrote: "The Monuments Men makes a welcome and superlative addition to the pantheon of war films, because it turns high-concept storytelling into a meaningful true-story tribute, drawing audiences in with monuments – the stars populating its A-list ensemble – and then truly making them care about the men whose very real efforts enabled their wattage to burn so brightly."

well, I am glad for that positive one   

but I was thinking that in case of good reviews all would be happy but again
all will anyway wait for the definitive answer

which is in audience's hands

This is just my opinion, but since this is a fan site, shouldn't we post only positive reviews for his work.

Of course I am also someone who doesn't believe in criticizing his personal life either. However, I understand if others don't feel the same way. I just think that since his film work is so important to him, it would be more encouraging to have just positive ones here.

I wouldn't think that only positive feedback will be helpful or encouraging for anyone, it wouldn't be honest. How would one improve his/her work..

I wouldn't get too worried about what a handful of critics have to say. It was a very limited group of people who saw it. I think there were only 8 in attendance. Their opinions wouldn't accurately reflect general audience appeal in the first place, so I wouldn't worry too much about them or give too much weight to their personal opinions.

Boshkash wrote:I wouldn't think that only positive feedback will be helpful or encouraging for anyone, it wouldn't be honest. How would one improve his/her work..

We are not film critics. We are fans, and we should support his efforts. It doesn't help one bit if his fan base listens or even worse spreads bad press about his work. I just think it would benefit him more to know "WE'VE GOT HIS BACK!"

Noooooo We do not want bad press! Ktsue is absolutely right.   

Why would fans spread bad press about George. I don't see that posting a few reviews (even if some are negative constitutes spreading bad press). There are various opinions out there and we should provide them all, after all the bums on the seats will determine in the end how much the audience liked or disliked a certain move. If we were to follow the idea that we should only present favourable/positive posts on this site then 50% of articles on here should be removed as not all the information we post here from other media platforms is entirely positive for George. Obviously no-one here is going to bombard this thread with constant negative reviews (if indeed that turns out to be the case) but a balance approach is okay.

theminis wrote:Why would fans spread bad press about George.  I don't see that posting a few reviews (even if some are negative constitutes spreading bad press). There are various opinions out there and we should provide them all, after all the bums on the seats will determine in the end how much the audience liked or disliked a certain move.  If we were to follow the idea that we should only present favourable/positive posts on this site then 50% of articles on here should be removed as not all the information we post here from other media platforms is entirely positive for George.  Obviously no-one here is going to bombard this thread with constant negative reviews (if indeed that turns out to be the case) but a balance approach is okay.

Good point. I am just saying, but I understand that not everyone agrees with me.    

Well said, Themi. And after all I'm sure the man himself is not shutting himself away from any slightly dodgy review - he's more likely to be preparing himself to answer the critics......

I also get the impression that those few critics who saw the advanced screening might have had preconceived bias given that the film's release date was postponed, missing this award season.   They based their presumptions that it was delayed for various reasons.   
Anyway, critics' influence is minimal & no reflection on popularity nor success.

Ocean wrote:I also get the impression that those few critics who saw the advanced screening might have had preconceived bias given that the film's release date was postponed, missing this award season.   They based their presumptions that it was delayed for various reasons.   
Anyway, critics' influence is minimal & no reflection on popularity nor success.

Well stated.   

Ocean wrote:I also get the impression that those few critics who saw the advanced screening might have had preconceived bias given that the film's release date was postponed, missing this award season.   They based their presumptions that it was delayed for various reasons.   
Anyway, critics' influence is minimal & no reflection on popularity nor success.

Right and I also think with so few there they talked about the movie and giving their own opinions. This could sway some that were undecided to someone else's way.

I was really upset for George last night, then I remembered "Out of Sight" got lukewarm to not so good reviews. Now it is considered to be a classic and was under rated. So I'll wait until I see it.

ktsue, even though I respect your feelings, the title of this forum says it all:

George Clooney's Open House

A (mostly) friendly George Clooney fan site updated daily with all the latest Clooney news, Clooney gossip, Clooney videos and Clooney pictures. Need more Clooney? It's all here!

Also, the bad reviews from some of the critics is because they didn't get popcorn!!!

melbert wrote:ktsue, even though I respect your feelings, the title of this forum says it all:

George Clooney's Open House

A (mostly) friendly George Clooney fan site updated daily with all the latest Clooney news, Clooney gossip, Clooney videos and Clooney pictures. Need more Clooney? It's all here!

Also, the bad reviews from some of the critics is because they didn't get popcorn!!!

Oh I know. I totally get what you are saying. Just adding my two cents. I have you a greenie also because the popcorn line was funny.

ktsue2002 wrote:This is just my opinion, but since this is a fan site, shouldn't we post only positive reviews for his work.

I'd prefer an honest account of what goes on in his life which means that if the critics dislike something he does, then no point pretending otherwise. To me, being a fan doesn't mean blind adulation or just loving everything the star does just because he does it and we can be honest enough here to share all of our feelings.

Katiedot wrote:

ktsue2002 wrote:This is just my opinion, but since this is a fan site, shouldn't we post only positive reviews for his work.

I'd prefer an honest account of what goes on in his life which means that if the critics dislike something he does, then no point pretending otherwise.  To me, being a fan doesn't mean blind adulation or just loving everything the star does just because he does it and we can be honest enough here to share all of our feelings.  

Ironically, I agree that being a fan doesn't mean blind adulation. I don't always agree with his decisions . I just feel that as a fan, I should stick up for him. I also don't mind if people disagree with me. Just adding my two cents.

And that's why we are all here Ktsue, to share our 2 cents, we may disagree or agree but in the main, we do so with respect, honesty and humour. Do I get a greenie if I mention gooey caramel popcorn!

There will always be those not really experienced critics feeling the need to make some unqualified comments, like one called John Goodman, Bob Balaban and Bill Murray "Ugly Old Men"  

In Germany, they say: "Du denkst du bist der Käse aber du stinkst nur!" translated it says: "You think you are the cheese but you just stink!" its like some critics seem to want George to look like a stinking cheese, saying he is a bad director, because he is not swimming with the stream.

So I don't give anything on those unqualified reviews!

I think following the directing style of "Nouvelle Vague", he goes against the predictability and asks himself to participate in all stages of film production, to develop his own personal style.
With his characteristic handwriting his film is personal and individual and emerges from the shadows of history and literature.
What matters is the ratio of the scriptwriter for his film, which is reflected in the nature of its implementation.

Seeing his movies I have the feeling there is always a bit of himself in it.
He tries in everything he does to respect the feelings of others and somehow protect them, make them feel comfortable.

In "my opinion", George did not want to produce a conventional war movie. There are a lot of very good WWII movies.
Think he wanted to make aware of the story (we all know about the terrible war) without refreshing the load on germans third decade and as one of those splendid filmmakers who, to realize their artistic aims use their own cinematographic form.

So lets watch Monuments Men and reflect with what he said in interviews about making the movie. Then we can decide for ourselves if it has reached its target.

I Love George for his work and his humanity but it doesn't keep me of being objective - I silently hope, there will be no need for me to say: "I didn't like it!" in a polite way.

For myself I always appreciate honest meant critics because they help you to see things in a different way.
Its not easy to objectively criticize art because there is always a philosophy of the artist behind it - you need to be a real expert - so the only thing I will be able to say is wether I liked it or not.

Thank's for reading

Great post, Rachel. You make so many poignant points.
I didn't consider if George had adapted a Nouvelle Vague style. I thought it was highly individualistic, though.
True, The Monuments Men is not a conventional WWII film. A unique story.

I don't think film critics persuade viewers anymore. Opinions are highly subjective.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If reviews don't persuade people to see films then what does? Is it the coming attractions, the star power, the subject matter? I think different age groups are attracted by different types of films. The question remains - what puts them in the seats?